The other day I saw a movie that really made me think again about economic systems. Whenever we talk about socialism, we say "it sounds good in theory, but it doesn't work. It just doesn't account for greed, and unfortunately that's just the way humans are." Something along those lines. The beauty of the greed system is that it often works out for the mutual good. It means that companies provide the highest quality products and services, or else they won't make any money. They get more money by making us happy, and therefore everyone's happy. It works out extremely well in most cases, really. I'm definitely happy that people work hard to make safe products and that when I walk in to a store they are really helpful, etc.

It's good to give people incentives for doing a good job. I believe that is important to any good system. Yet, we have set up greed as the one and only incentive in most cases. The problem is that, as much as this incentive works in favor of the common good, it also often works against it in many cases. So, take things like caring for the environment, providing decent wages, providing good health care, establishing fair trade policies, and many other things for example. All these things go against the incentive of making profit, and are only changed when it can be financially beneficial (such as people growing crops for ethanol). It's not that corporations are inherently bad or that CEOs or other corporate members are demonic people. The thing is that corporations are machines made to run in a specific system for the purpose of making money, and the workers are mostly replaceable parts.

Some people suggest that consumers should put pressure on corporations to do these things (i.e. not buy products made in sweatshops, or with harmful chemicals, etc.). This would put a price tag on being bad, and make being good profitable. There are some big barriers to this, however. This would assume that the general population is going to 1) put in the effort find out this information (which powerful interests will hide, cloud, or skew for their own purpose) and 2) be willing to make personal sacrifices about the products they buy based on principle.

Now, if I have set up an entire system based on the principle that people will only look out for their own interest, it seems odd to me to expect to solve some of it's problems by counting on the general public to look out for the interests of other people above their own. My point is that a lot of the large problems are caused when economic interests conflict with the good of humanity. I am not sure any real progress can be made on these issues until we step in to put limits on these powerful forces.

There are other solutions to these things. Maybe it's just being more forceful about the limits we put on them, or we could even go as far as socializing something like health care (gasp!). I mean, other countries do it, and in the US we have socialized schools and fire departments, and that seems to be ok. I don't know what the solution is for sure, but I think it includes more than some minor adjustments to our current system. However, I believe that there are things that both sound good and theory and do work.

Due to the nature of some of the things I talk about, I sometimes get criticized for complaining about things when I don't have a better solution. I believe, of course, that it is better not only to criticise but also to pose some sort of alternative. I agree that people do not only want to hear bad news or griping about some problem, they want to know about some way to make it different. With that being said, I still think it is valid to critically think through things, even if you don't have a solution right away, and an attitude that oppose this scares me. Here are some reasons why:

1. First of all, there is an implication that reality is static. I believe that shaping reality (and not just understanding it or learning about it) is the work of every generation. I don't think it is good to simply accept the conclusions of the previous generations (even if they are good conclusions and you come to the same ones in the end). Reality is constantly changing, and it is what we make it. The real progress we make does not come automatically with time, but is the result of long, hard work from determined people. Therefore, questioning, wrestling with, and shaping reality is a constant work.

2. As I've said before, life and all of its systems are complex. When talking about these large systems, it seems absurd to me that one would have to come up with some complete solution before beginning to talk about the problems. These systems are a result of a long, continuous process, and the problems are continually evolving. Therefore, the solutions are complex, and will come as a result of a long process. If I don't have the solution all packaged and ready to go, I still think questioning and wrestling with the world's complexities is important and valuable.

3. Sometimes, people make some reference saying that our system is the worst one except all the other ones (alluding to Winston Churchill). This attitude seems to say that while there are still problems in the world, we have pretty much arrived at the best solution available. Despite the fact that Churchill was referring to a political system and not an economic one, it is sometimes applied to both of ours, putting democracy and capitalism at equal status.

Now, if we were simply denying problems (aka declaring we have a perfect system), this would make criticizing fairly dangerous. As information about problems came out, it could cause people to revolt against the system. However, this attitude causes us to acknowledge problems and dismiss them as minor, unavoidable, and/or necessary for the ultimate good. This makes it harder to get people to think seriously about problems which, I believe, are very serious.

This past weekend I had the chance to go out to Moro Moro, a small village in the campo, to see some of the rural programs that MCC has out there. It was a long 10 hour bus ride, but the scenery was great. It was a relaxing time in the mountains, accompanied by quite a bit of hiking. Still, it left me with some lingering questions.

(Disclaimer: this is not a description of Moro Moro, just some imaginative thoughts)
I wonder what it would be like to live in a small, isolated town in the mountains. It seems like for a lot of people in rural areas, their life decisions are dictated by what's available. Choosing some other profession or place to live is not very practical. And so, they don't really have a lot of options as far as what kind of work they have, where they live, what friends they have, what they do for fun, etc. Their local life is pretty much all they know. It's simple and yet difficult.

Imagine living in a place like this, where the only foreign people you see have come to "help" you, to fix some problem, or to help your village with "development." That alone seems like it would do some damage to your self-image. Beyond that, though, imagine what it would be like to have someone who is younger than you, who doesn't talk like you, eat like you, view the world like you, suffer like you, etc. tell you how to improve your life. Imagine having these foreigners dump on you strange "technology" which you know neither how to work it or why you need it (since it seems to be accomplishing a goal the foreigners decided was necessary).

Surely, not all international development is done in this way, and these are definitely not things I observed in the MCC projects. Still, I wonder about the appropriate influence I can have as a foreigner in such a context (if there even is one). What is the best type of relationship and way to interact with these people? Again, big questions (I seem to have an affinity for those), and people have written books trying to answer them. For now, I'm content with raising and contemplating them.

Last post I talked about some thoughts related to an article I read the other day. I am just going to continue where I left off, so hopefully you read the last post.

3. Unfortunately, just because someone thinks they are doing good, does not mean that they are, in fact, doing good. This also particularly true in development work. Often people with good intentions end up causing a lot of damage. There are many examples of how this might happen, but here's one from the MCC manual on short term Work and Learn teams:

"Experience has also shown that when visitors work on a project without local participation the effects can be more harmful than helpful. Such projects can stroke the visitor's sense of superiority when they believe they have 'fixed' someone else's problem. It can also be degrading to the receiving group when they have had no input into solutions that they are then expected to own and maintain."

My point is that I am entirely convinced that the means is just as important (and in many cases more important) than the end. Being the Mennonite that I am (ok, I'm not actually a Mennonite, but I like to sound like I'm part of the group. . . they're very accepting, really), I believe that the use of violence falls into the "unacceptable means" category. There are some situations where it is hard for me to point the finger at people who take up arms to fight injustice, like Che Guevara. But then I look at paramilitary groups in Colombia inspired by the Cuban Revolution. They have been around for over 40 years, and to this day are still responsible for a large number of killings and kidnappings taking place in a war torn country. Hopefully I will get a chance to write a little more about my pacifist stance later, but for now I'll just say that I am not convinced that violence can bring about any positive, lasting social change.

4. As sort of a corollary to the last point, I want to mention the US government. First of all, I recognize that the government is not one person, but a large, complex and diverse group of people who discuss and debate and process things. Still, just like many corporations, the group tends to take on a larger "spirit" or "personality" (which is a particularly ironic word for corporations considering they have the legal status of "persons"). The US government, despite all it's complexity, tends to act in certain ways. I believe that it is full of good, well-meaning people. I also believe that some of its actions are undeniably bad. I love my country and I do think there are a lot of really good things about it. However, just like any institution, just because it states good intentions, does not mean that we do not need to think critically about its actions and means of accomplishing its goals.

I started writing this, and it turns out I have quite a lot of thoughts on it. I try to keep my blog posts to a manageable size, so I decided to split this into two. Here's part 1.

I read an article the other day asking the question if Hitler thought he was doing good. Now, before I go any further I have to preface this a little. I think that we often talk about Hitler as if he were evil incarnate, the devil in the flesh, the diabolical opposite of Jesus. Any attempts to humanize our image of Hitler is met with strong emotional backlashes. The question isn't whether or not he was good. He was definitely, undeniably bad. The fact is, however, that Hitler was human, and perhaps thought he was good. As the author of the article points out:

"John Laffin believes the West has a mistaken image of Hitler, which shows him only to be diabolical. He proves his point by reprinting many of Hitler's photos in the 1935 Nazi Party book: Adolf Hitler. It became a very popular book for many Germans until after the war, when the books were hastily destroyed due to de-nazification and "guilt by association." (7) The book is filled with pictures of Hitler smiling, embracing the young and elderly, and consoling mourners. Because we do not see these images, we compare ourselves with only the evil Hitler who murdered six million people. We believe ourselves to be ethically superior and mistakenly believe our thoughts and actions can (could?) never intersect with Hitler's beliefs and behaviors. Yet, our hatreds and inabilities to forgive, our jealousies and prejudices, our dreams of empire building and power grabs, do overlap with Hitler's thinking that he was doing good, maybe just not on such a grand scale. "

In addition, the article points out how Hitler was strongly supported by so many, including conservative Christian groups, mostly for his anti-communist stance. My professor in Costa Rica used to always quote the Pope saying that Hitler was "an indispensable bulwark against communism."

Here are a few thoughts about all this.

1. It is important to recognize that in the we have a vested interest in avoiding a "human" image of Hitler. We took direct, violent action against him, and we "won." A bad image of him makes us look good. Not only does it makes us feel like we did the right thing, it lets us feel justified about the hundreds of other direct, violent interventions in our name. Maintaining an image of Hitler (and the Nazis in general) as beyond redemption is important for our own reputation. Again, it's not about whether or not they were bad. Of course they were. However, it is important to recognize factors and biases that might skew the picture. Were they really beyond reason and redemption?

2. Suppose it were true that Hitler was beyond reason and redemption. Still, I am reminded how any leader is only as strong as the people who consent to his or her power. Leaders don't make people do things. They may appeal to fear or play on people's emotions or whatever, but ultimately each person has the choice to consent or not to consent to a leader's wishes. And you can't do what Hitler did without the consent of a whole lot of normal people, people who you can reason with. To me, this means that nonviolent action can be successful, even against someone like Hitler, because it fights the ideologies of the supporters. Violence only reinforces their logic, which will, in turn, create more supporters. (Walter Wink, in his book The Powers that Be, also contends that nonviolent action could have been successful in WWII Germany.) Consequently, I feel like this is what is happening with our "war on terror." By presupposing people to be beyond reason, we reinforce their skewed logic and cause more people to consent to it.

More to come next time.

A long time ago, back in high school, I prepared a small talk for a school Bible study. I talked about grace, which if you know me isn't surprising. I remember making a list of all the things that grace meant to me. One of the things I wrote was that "grace means it's never ok to dislike someone." I think grace is shockingly inclusive, and I wanted to come up with some things that I thought conveyed a small part of that.

So often, I hear justifications for griping about or looking down on other people. We have personality differences or people that just "rub us the wrong way." Which is true, of course; there are people we just simply don't like for whatever reason. However, I think when we just let ourselves settle into a dislike of someone using these rationales, it becomes a problem.

On a small scale, even though we would never actually say this, it lets us think that other people are somehow inherently less important. Aside from what it makes us feel about ourselves, it also leads us to being a happy or reveling a little when other people are humiliated or hurt. On a larger scale I think it can often be about making judgements and stereotypes about whole groups of people, instead of seeking to understand them. I feel like I see this kind of stuff all the time in the international scene. In the end, this causes a lot of problems regarding human rights and justice issues.

Sometimes, it's easy to denounce racism and justice on a large scale, but not so easy to learn to love that person in our lives that we dislike. We just let it go because we can avoid him or her. We tell ourselves that everyone has people they don't like, and therefore we are justified in continuing to dislike them. I am becoming more and more convinced, I think if we cannot learn to accept the people we dislike on the small scale, I don't know how we can expect people to do it on a large scale.